Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legislative Department
Safeguards that proscribe the legislative power of inquiry.
the public. (Senate, et al. vs. Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 167777, April
20, 2006).
Congress must not require the executive to state the reasons for
the claim with such particularity as to compel disclosure of the
information which the privilege is meant to protect. A useful
analogy in determining the requisite degree of particularity would
be the privilege against self-incrimination.
his certificate of candidacy was not yet final, hence, he had at that
point in time remained qualified.
His proclamation was valid or legal and as he in fact had taken his
oath of office and assumed his duties as representative, the
COMELEC had been effectively divested of jurisdiction over the
case. (Planas v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 167594, March 10,
2006, Carpio Morales, J).
Q
ANS: No.
Note:
The general rule is that the proclamation of a congressional
candidate divests COMELEC of jurisdiction in favor of the HRET.
This rule, however, is not without exception. In Mutuc, et al. v.
COMELEC, et al., it was ruled that it is indeed true that after
proclamation the usual remedy of any party aggrieved in an
election is to be found in an election protest. But that is so only on
the assumption that there has been a valid proclamation. Where
however, the proclamation itself is illegal, the assumption of office
cannot in any way affect the basic issues. (Planas v. COMELEC,
et al., G.R. No. 167594, March 10, 2006).
POWERS:
Legislative
Republican Systems:
1. Original possessed by the sovereign people
2. Derivative that which is delegated by the sovereign
people to the legislative bodies and is subordinate to the
original power of the people; vested in Congress
Non-legislative
xxx
xxx
Petitioners contend that the people of San Juan should have
been made to participate in the plebiscite on RA 7675 as the
same involved a change in their legislative district. The
contention is bereft of merit since the principal subject
involved in the plebiscite was the conversion of Mandaluyong
into a highly urbanized city. The matter of separate district
representation was only ancillary thereto. Thus, the
inhabitants of San Juan were properly excluded from the said
plebiscite as they had nothing to do with the change of
status of neighboring Mandaluyong.
Similarly, petitioners additional argument that the subject
law has resulted in gerrymandering, which is the practice
of creating legislative districts to favor a particular candidate
or party, is not worthy of credence. As correctly observed by
the Solicitor General, it should be noted that Rep. Ronaldo
Zamora, the author of the assailed law, is the incumbent
representative of the former San Juan/Mandaluyong district,
having consistently won in both localities. By dividing San
Juan/Mandaluyong, Rep. Zamoras constituency has in fact
been diminished, which development could hardly be
considered as favorable to him.
Party-list System: Inviolable parameters to determine the
winners; Computation
Veterans Federation Party vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 136781, Oct.
6, 2000
To determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list
election, the Constitution and RA 7941 mandate at least four
inviolable parameters. These are:
First, the twenty percent allocation the combined number of
No. of votes of
concerned party No. of additional Additional
x seats allocated to = Seats for
No. of votes of the first party concerned
first party (Emphasis supplied.) party
495,190
x 2 =
1,203,305
0.41152493 x 2 = 0.82304986
This is a far cry from the claimed Ang Bagong Bayani and
Bayan Muna formula which used the multiplier allotted seats
for the first party, viz:
Additional Seats = Votes Cast for Qualified Party x Allotted
Seats
____________________ for First Party
Votes Cast for First Party
Applying the Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna formula to
CIBAC, it yields the following result:
Additional seats = 495,190 x 3 = 1.2345
________
1,203,305
Unfortunately, it is the Veterans formula that is sanctioned by
the Court and not the Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna
formula that petitioner alleges.
DISCIPLINE:
Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 134577, Nov. 18, 1998
Journal
The Journal is regarded as conclusive with respect to matters
that are required by the Constitution to be recorded therein.
With respect to other matters, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, the Journals have also been accorded
conclusive effect. Thus, in United States v. Pons, this Court
spoke of the imperatives of public policy for regarding the
Journals as public memorials of the most permanent
character, thus: They should be public, because all are
required to conform to them; they should be permanent, that
rights acquired today upon the faith of what has been
declared to be law shall not be destroyed tomorrow, or at
some remote period of time, by facts resting only in the
memory of individuals. As already noted, the bill which
became R.A. No. 8240 is shown in the Journal. Hence its due
enactment has been duly proven.
FUNCTIONS:
Exclusive power to determine the qualifications of members
of Congress
Sole jurisdiction to judge election contest between a member
and the defeated candidate
HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction to judge election
contests concerning its members; House has no power to
interfere; HRET members are entitled to security of tenure,
regardless of any change in their political affiliations
In the case of Cunanan v. Tan, the Court noted that the Allied
Majority was a merely temporary combination as the
Nacionalista defectors had not disaffiliated from their party
and permanently joined the new political group. Officially,
they were still members of the Nacionalista Party. The
reorganization of the Commission on Appointments was
invalid because it was not based on the proportional
representation of the political parties in the House of
Representatives as required by the Constitution. The Court
Held:
... In other words, a shifting of votes at a given time, even if
du to arrangements of a more or less temporary nature, like
the one that has led to the formation of the so-called "Allied
Majority," does not suffice to authorize a reorganization of
the membership of the Commission for said House.
Otherwise the Commission on Appointments may have to be
reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another
in the House. The framers of our Constitution could not have
intended to thus place a constitutional organ, like the
Commission on Appointments, at the mercy of each House of
Congress.
The petitioner's contention that, even if registered, the party
must still pass the test of time to prove its permanence is not
acceptable. Under this theory, a registered party obtaining
the majority of the seats in the House of Representatives (or
the Senate) would still not be entitled to representation in the
Commission on Appointments as long as it was organized
only recently and has not yet "aged." The Liberal Party itself
would fall in such a category. That party was created in
December 1945 by a faction of the Nacionalista Party that
seceded therefrom to support Manuel A. Roxas's bid for the
Presidency of the Philippines in the election held on April 23,
1946. The Liberal Party won. At that time it was only four
months old. Yet no question was raised as to its right to be
represented in the Commission on Appointments and in the
KINDS OF APPOINTMENT:
Regular requires concurrence of CA; if revoked by CA, can
return to his old post but cannot be reappointed; if bypassed
by CA, reappointment is allowed
Ad Interim permanent and effective until revoked or
disapproved by CA; if revoked by CA, cannot return to his old
post or be reappointed; if bypassed, the appointment shall
only last until the next adjournment of Congress and official
may be reappointed to the same position
Temporary appointments in acting capacity; no need for
concurrence of CA and shall last only for a period not
exceeding one year
Acting Appointments of President (See Pimentel vs. Executive
Secretary)
Legislative Inquiries/Investigations
KINDS:
In Aid of Legislation (Sec. 21)
Question Hour (Sec. 22)
In Aid of Legislation vs. Question Hour (See Neri vs. Senate)
In Aid of Legislation
CONDITIONS:
Must be in aid of legislation either in making a new
legislation or improving a defective one
shall be passed.
NOTA BENE:
Discretionary Funds
CONDITIONS:
Transfer of Funds
NOTA BENE:
Logrolling legislation is sought to be prevented in order to
avoid a situation wherein what had been disapproved if taken
on its own, may be approved because it was lumped in a
favorable subject.
It is enough that the title must be able to state what the bill
is all about, without necessarily enumerating the details of
the bill.
Presidential certification dispenses with both the 3-day
printing and the 3 readings on 3 separate days. But the bill
must still go through 3 readings, which may be done on the
same day. This is not subject to judicial review, as a general
rule, because there is no factual basis of grave abuse of
discretion to speak of.
Line or Item only for ART bills because each item of ART is a
bill in itself in terms of importance; veto only certain
provisions that are inappropriate
INAPPROPRIATE PROVISIONS:
Any provision that does not relate to a particular, distinctive
appropriation or item; in such a case, the inappropriate
provision shall be treated as an item and therefore can be
vetoed
Any provision blocking admnistrative action in implementing
the law or requiring legislative approval for executive action
Any provision that is unconstitutional
Any provision that amends a certain law